Woods v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

Case [1991] FCA 393


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 262 of 1991

)

GENERAL DIVISION )
BETWEEN:  MARY JEAN WOODS

Applicant

AND :  COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA & ANOR

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This is a matter which was commenced in the Court by an application filed on 24 May 1991. It appears from the statement of claim that the case arises out of the granting of security in respect of a bakery business at Merimbula in New South Wales. The applicant asserts that certain of the respondents made false

representations to her which sound in damages and give rise, so

Christie on behalf of the applicant, it is in my view a case that is imminently appropriate to transfer to the District Court of
New South Wales and of course it is desirable if that course is to be taken, that it be done as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Court of its own motion orders that this matter be transfered to the District Court of New South Wales.
Costs incurred thus far by both parties should be costs in the proceeding.

it is asserted, to various forms of relief under the Trade P r a c t i c e s A c t 1974 the F a i r T r a d i n g A c t 1987 (N.S.W.). In part the applicant's case is based on an alleged contravention of S.

52 of the Trade P r a c t i c e s A c t .

It appears from the particulars accompanying the statement
of claim and indeed from the application itself that the damages
claimed are small. Notwithstanding what has been said by M r

I certify that this and the

preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

Associate

Dated: 5 July 1991

Solicitors for the Applicant :  A.J. Clark & Filmer
(M. Christie appearing)
Solicitors for the Respondent :  L.E. Taylor
(Mr Robinson appearing)
Date of Hearing  5 July 1991
Date of Judgment  5 July 1991
Details
AGLC
Woods v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1991] FCA 393
Case
[1991] FCA 393
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woods v Commonwealth Bank of Australia is a case that originated in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically within the New South Wales District Registry. The applicant, Mary Jean Woods, initiated proceedings against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia and another respondent, asserting claims that include false representations, damages, and alleged contraventions of the Trade Practices Act 1974 and the Fair Trading Act 1987 (N.S.W.). The case pertains to the granting of security for a bakery business located in Merimbula, New South Wales. The applicant argues that the respondents made false representations which led to her incurring damages and violating her rights under the mentioned Acts.

The court was tasked with determining whether the case was appropriately filed in the Federal Court or if it should be transferred to another jurisdiction. This decision was influenced by the nature and scope of the claims, as well as the monetary damages sought. The primary legal issue was whether the case should remain in the Federal Court or be transferred to the District Court of New South Wales due to the relatively small amount of damages claimed and the applicability of state-level statutes.

Justice Lockhart ruled that the case was more appropriately suited for the District Court of New South Wales. The decision to transfer was based on the imminent appropriateness of the case for that court and the desirability of expediting the transfer. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the matter to the District Court of New South Wales and directed that the costs incurred by both parties thus far should be considered costs in the proceeding.

Justice Lockhart's judgment was rendered on July 5, 1991, with the case being transferred to the District Court of New South Wales. The decision also included an order for the costs incurred by both parties to be treated as costs in the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.